tenetsummer04

President’s Message
Laura Ziegler
Greetings to the NARPA
membership.
Our next annual rights conference
will take place in 2005, at a
yet-to-be determined location in
the Northeast. We look forward
to seeing you there, and to maintaining
the tradition of excellence
that has marked NARPA
conferences since 1981.
What about 2004?
NARPA is undergoing a transition
aimed at strengthening the
organization and enabling it to continue its mission in a
changing political and economic landscape. We hope to
expand member participation in NARPA’s work, to find
additional funding sources, and especially, to make our
conferences more financially sustainable — both for
NARPA and for attendees. Among other things, we are
exploring alternatives to the upscale hotels where we’ve
met for the past 22 years, and more effective collaborations
with other advocacy organizations.
State governments, advocacy agencies, foundations and
activist groups have something in common: fewer resources
than before. Funding for attending out-of-state
conferences has diminished. We will do our best to adapt,
because it is critical that our work continue.
These are perilous times. The foundations of our judicial
system are shaking, fissures have opened in the bedrock
of liberty and the rule of law can no longer be presumed.
People without disability labels are now targeted
for extended detention with no criminal charges, while
all of us are advised to watch what we say — and, perhaps,
what we think. The federal government announces
“New Freedom” for people with disabilities to live independent
lives outside of institutions, while waging a war
of attrition on the human services, housing subsidies and
entitlement programs which could make that freedom
possible. Meanwhile we face expanded mandates for outpatient
commitment, the pathologizing and drugging of
almost every aspect of life, aggressive marketing disguised
as science, and hate campaigns under the banner of advocacy.
Coercion and force are promoted as enablers,
couched in rhetoric that substitutes “voluntary submission”
for self determination and clinical discretion for
due process.
Yet the ground shifts in more ways than one. The vision
of recovery is gaining official endorsement, and reactionary
attacks on peer run service models and cultural
competency can be viewed as a kind of testament
to their growing acceptance. Restraints-as-usual has been
rejected by a significant part of the mental health establishment.
The pharmaceutical industry’s gross overreaching
and ethical shortfalls have brought it under critical
scrutiny that is increasingly mainstream. Recognition of
President’s Message continued on page 13
NARPA Rights Tenet: Summer 2004 page 4
NARPA/NAPAS
Dialogue
Bill Stewart
The latest round of discussions
between NARPA and the
National Association of Protection
and Advocacy Systems
(NAPAS) was held during our
annual conference in Austin on
November 23, 2003. Our goals
including pursuing a set of agreements
for coordination of activities
between the two groups. Ultimately,
this discussion needs to
culminate in a broader model of
collaboration between groups with similar goals, but different
strategies and circumstance. This is a summary of
the status of those agreements:
1.Several persons said that NARPA should play a role
in development of individual advocacy groups of consumer/survivors.
Many P&As depend on input from consumer/survivors
to develop systems priorities, but in many
states, the movement is co-opted by service providers or
by NAMI or both. There were multiple requests from
P&As for help in getting consumer/survivors to apply
for PAIMI Advisory Councils. (STATUS: NARPA is pursuing
a set of possible funding sources, keeping in mind
our philosophy that accepting funds from government or
for-profit sources is likely to compromise our autonomy.)
2.There was strong agreement that NAPAS and NARPA
should have better electronic information sharing.
Maureen Fitzgerald (NAPAS president) said that Elizabeth
Priaux of NAPAS has volunteered to act as liaison
for NAPAS in the ongoing interaction between the two
organizations. Both organizations agree that sharing and
distributing specific information is advantageous.
3.There was general agreement that NARPA should
consider becoming an associate member of NAPAS, with
two persons suggesting that the fee for associate membership
be waived in light of NARPA’S financial circumstances.
4.At least two participants expressed concern that their
respective P&As were unresponsive and “arrogant” in
their choices of issues taken as priorities for litigation.
Discussion followed of the priority-setting process and
the role of NAPAS when complaints about P&As are
made. Maureen Fitzgerald said that NAPAS is a trade
organization and that the federal agency responsible for
oversight of P&As is in process of creating teams to visit
respective states. (STATUS: Problems with individual
Protection and Advocacy programs are a long-standing
source of contentiousness between our respective groups.
We continue to look for ways to have some productive
outcomes as a result of this dialogue.)
5.We had a discussion of trans-disability issues. A previous
evening workshop revealed some of the differences
NARPA/NAPAS Dialogue continued on page 19